If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

^ Unfortunately I think he's talking about eating the whole thing raw Pklopp. Not anything I would recommend, but you could see the RS factor going through the roof. Or am I missing something in the back and forth here...

Comment

I am not sure what is being debated here. Is it whether or not this mysterious RS is necessary, or whether or not it does anything in particular? I don't eat resistant starch. I just eat food. If it has RS in it, well, who cares? That reminds me. Time to bake my breakfast potato. Why? So I can get my precious RS? Of course not, silly. I'm having a potato because it's big and I'm hungry and it'll go well with my salmon.

Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

Comment

This is to some extent irrelevant, and I don't particularly care to engage in a data source duel, because what I really want to discuss is whether one ought to go out of one's way to purposefully add resistant starch to one's diet. Having said that, however, I seem unable to help myself, so I will take exception to your assertion regarding the starch in a potato:

Health versus weight loss: beans may not be the healthiest food to ingest for health, but it very well may be superior to most paleo foods for weight loss. Paleo is a great way to become healthy (assuming you don't exclusionary diet like low carb, low fat, etc), but it's not necessarily the best way to get very lean. Nature doesn't want you to be very lean after all. Beans very well may be a superior weight loss food due to this, so maybe this is why Tim pushes them so hard for fat loss.

I challenge anyone to get fat eating chicken breast and navy beans. Most paleos would scoff at this meal - and I probably would as well due to the boredom - but I bet it's a damn fine fat loss meal.

I would call potatoes a vastly superior food for weight loss versus green vegetables slathered in butter, but I may put canned beans above a potato. But chicken breast is a superior weight loss food to beef ribeye. But...guess which is thawing in my fridge as we speak. Not the chicken. So what's more important to you?

Comment

I am not sure what is being debated here. Is it whether or not this mysterious RS is necessary, or whether or not it does anything in particular? I don't eat resistant starch. I just eat food. If it has RS in it, well, who cares? That reminds me. Time to bake my breakfast potato. Why? So I can get my precious RS? Of course not, silly. I'm having a potato because it's big and I'm hungry and it'll go well with my salmon.

I don't see any point to this discussion, either. My thoughts:

1.) Potatoes are a very healthy, nutrient dense food that fits perfectly into a paleo or primal eating plan.

2.) Potatoes are a very good food for weight loss due to the high satiety factor and low food reward. They only become problematic when you "dress them up" too much (cover them in butter, sour cream, salt, green onions, bacon and cheddar and it's not really fair to call a potato 'fattening').

3.) Eating them cold may have a small weight loss advantage and slight health benefits to eating them hot.

In conclusion, eat potatoes if you like them because they're good for your body and good for your waistline. If you like them better hot than cold, don't worry about it. If you don't have a preference, eat them cold. If you don't like them at all, no one is forcing you to eat them.

Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Comment

1.) Potatoes are a very healthy, nutrient dense food that fits perfectly into a paleo or primal eating plan.

2.) Potatoes are a very good food for weight loss due to the high satiety factor and low food reward. They only become problematic when you "dress them up" too much (cover them in butter, sour cream, salt, green onions, bacon and cheddar and it's not really fair to call a potato 'fattening').

3.) Eating them cold may have a small weight loss advantage and slight health benefits to eating them hot.

In conclusion, eat potatoes if you like them because they're good for your body and good for your waistline. If you like them better hot than cold, don't worry about it. If you don't have a preference, eat them cold. If you don't like them at all, no one is forcing you to eat them.

Dressed up potatoes are so good though, like so ridiculously good. I LOVE potatoes smothered in any sort of fat, fuck... I'm starving. Could one compromise and have fatty potatoes with lean protein? I'm going to vote yes...

I can only do cold potatoes when eating peruvian ceviche, which is a very primal friendly meal and given this discussion also a great fat loss meal (almost no fat in it at all) though that is typically served with cold sweet potatoes I could do it with white just as well. Those interested should seek some recipes.

I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

Comment

Take a look at the red arrow, which tells us that 2% of the starch in a boiled potato is resistant. So, of that 35 grams of starch, you're looking at a thoroughly underwhelming 0.7g of resistant starch. I find that the proportion of resistant starch attributed to potatoes tends to directly and positively correlated to how hard one is trying to convince you to eat an all potato diet.

From the table you can see that if you are really looking to get resistant starch from potatoes, you can double your yield by going to pommes frites ( green arrow ). Of course, you also do wonders for palatability with respect to boiled potatoes, a win-win.

-PK

This whole thread makes it look like PK is comparing RS to unicorns. RS definitely exists, and is definitely being studied for health benefits...undisputed facts.

As to the amounts contained in potatoes, I can't see where you are coming up with such low figures. From your chart, it shows that (far right column) nearly 100% of a potato carbs, no matter how it's prepared, are potentially available as 'starch'.

A typical potato weighs about 250g (1/2lbs), and contains 17g per 100g of carbs, or 42g of carbs, of which nearly 100% is starch (from your chart, far right column)

I have seen it said, that the RS in a raw potato is approx 75% of available starch, so the typical raw potato has about 30g of RS.

From wikipedia link:

The amount of resistant starch in potatoes depends much on preparation methods. Cooking and then cooling potatoes significantly increases resistant starch. For example, cooked potato starch contains about 7% resistant starch, which increases to about 13% upon cooling.

So, the potato in my example, when boiled, now has 3g of RS. Allowed to cool, it will have 5.5g of RS.

It looks to me like your chart is showing 100g serving sizes, which is like less than half a potato.

My whole point here is that the SAD contains some RS, from potato chips, beans, grains, and other off-limits Primal Blueprint foods. When we switch away from the SAD to a healthier paleo style diet, we remove most, if not all, RS. Eating potatoes and rice will get some RS back into your diet. Eating cooked and cooled potatoes and rice will get even more, and eating raw potato will get a whole lot.

For me, this means eating potatoes on a daily basis, approx 1 pound (or 2 potatoes), I eat some hot, some cold, some raw. I eat them plainly, with just salt and pepper or a bit of dipping sauce.

Comment

Go to Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, anywhere and search for 'Resistant Starch + health' or similar, you'll get thousands of hits. In every one, you will see things like:

...the addition of RS to the diet protects against protein-induced colonic DNA damage and maintenance of the colonic mucus barrier, apparently through increased SCFA production by colonic fermentation. The results of these experiments indicate a strong potential for RS to be effective in maintenance of large bowel integrity in the face of high dietary protein.

or

...RS appears to confer considerable benefits to human colonic health, but has a smaller impact on lipid and glucose metabolism. Comparisons between studies are hampered by differences in study design, poor experimental design and differences in the source, type and dose of RS in the ingredients or diets used. It is likely that RS mediates some or all of its effects through the action of short chain fatty acids but interest is increasing regarding its prebiotic potential. There is also increasing interest in using RS to lower the energy value and available carbohydrate content of foods. RS can also be used to enhance the fibre content of foods and is under investigation regarding its potential to accelerate the onset of satiation and to lower the glycaemic response. Due to the difficulties in agreeing on a universal definition and method of analysis for dietary fibre, RS may be included within the term ‘fibre’ on the nutrition labels in some countries but not in others. Pressure to agree a legal definition and universal method of analysis is likely to increase due to the potential of RS to enhance colonic health, and to act as a vehicle to increase the total dietary fibre content of foodstuffs, particularly those which are low in energy and/or in total carbohydrate content. from Health properties of resistant starch - Nugent - 2005 - Nutrition Bulletin - Wiley Online Library

Comment

The point, as I see it, is that knowledge is power. To that end, discussion is valuable provided it is bolstered by evidence, rather than the mere stating and restating of intensely held opinion.

With the above in mind, I wasn't expecting this to be a very controversial post. The metabolic processing of resistant carbohydrates is not really amenable to debate, the biochemistry is pretty well established, and I see nothing wrong with sharing that with other interested folks here. The debate started when potato / resistant starch apologists took exception to the science.

I think that as adults, if you like potatoes and really want to eat potatoes, then you should just eat the damn potatoes. Trying to rationalize your desire with pseudo science doesn't do anybody any good. Note that none of this is to say that eating potatoes or resistant starch is a bad thing, only that these are not miracle foods. There is no such thing.

Take a look at the red arrow, which tells us that 2% of the starch in a boiled potato is resistant. So, of that 35 grams of starch, you're looking at a thoroughly underwhelming 0.7g of resistant starch. I find that the proportion of resistant starch attributed to potatoes tends to directly and positively correlated to how hard one is trying to convince you to eat an all potato diet.

Of course, the undisputed champions of resistant starches are beans and legumes, so if flatulence is your cup of tea, you know what to do.
-PK

This whole thread makes it look like PK is comparing RS to unicorns. RS definitely exists, and is definitely being studied for health benefits...undisputed facts.

Bran has been extensively studied for its health benefits too. Does that mean I need some? I think not.

PK is not saying that rs doesn't exist, just that it is not something that everybody must have large quantities of right now or face dire health consequences. It's just not that important one way or the other.

"These new studies suggest that increasing the amount of resistant starch in our diets may be one important step along the path to reducing the burden of bowel cancer. It takes about 15 years from the time of the first bowel cancer-initiating DNA damage to the development of full-blown bowel cancer, so the earlier we improve our diets the better," Dr Lockett said.

The recommended intake of resistant starch is around 20 grams a day, which is almost four times greater than a typical western diet provides. Twenty grams is equivalent to eating three cups of cooked lentils.

"Currently, it is difficult for Australians to get this much from a typical diet," Dr Topping said.

"We have already had success in developing barley with high levels of resistant starch, and now our focus is on increasing the levels of resistant starch in commonly consumed grains like wheat. These grains could then be used in breads and cereals to make it easier for Australians to get enough resistant starch from their diet."

Resistant starch is a component of dietary fibre that resists digestion in the small intestine and instead passes through to the bowel where it has positive effects on bowel health. Resistant starch is sometimes called the third type of dietary fibre (in addition to soluble and insoluble fibre) and is found in legumes, some wholegrain breads and cereals, firm bananas and cooked and cooled potatoes, pasta and rice.

As to the amounts contained in potatoes, I can't see where you are coming up with such low figures. From your chart, it shows that (far right column) nearly 100% of a potato carbs, no matter how it's prepared, are potentially available as 'starch'.

I have seen it said, that the RS in a raw potato is approx 75% of available starch, so the typical raw potato has about 30g of RS.

Where have you seen it? Who said it? When did they say it? Keep in mind that under a strict interpretation of this sentence, you reading your own post where you claim that 75% of available starch is resistant starch qualifies as "having seen it said", albeit in a completely unsatisfying fraudulent way.

I can just as easily claim, unsubstantiated of course, that I have seen it said that potatoes are long term metabolic poison.

It looks to me like your chart is showing 100g serving sizes, which is like less than half a potato.

Nope, it's this sciency thing called percentages.. The way they work is, you use them to multiply stuff. So, as an example, when it says 2% of starch in a potato is resistant and then you say an average serving comprises 35g of starch, then you multiply .02 x 35 and you get 0.7g of that 35g of initial starch is actually resistant.

You may also take note of the fact that the people who say 2% of the starch in a Swedish potato is resistant starch happen to be the fine folks at the Department of Applied Nutrition and Food Chemistry, Center for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Lund University, not some nameless, faceless "they."

My whole point here is that the SAD contains some RS, from potato chips, beans, grains, and other off-limits Primal Blueprint foods. When we switch away from the SAD to a healthier paleo style diet, we remove most, if not all, RS. Eating potatoes and rice will get some RS back into your diet. Eating cooked and cooled potatoes and rice will get even more, and eating raw potato will get a whole lot.

That's an interesting point, and I generally agree with it. I have no idea how you arrived at the recommended intake of resistant starch when it is generally accepted that the average American ingests on average 4g of resistant starch per day ... I have seen it said, but I'll pull up the reference for you.

Comment

3) This is the critical step, where you make up a number, and attribute it to nameless, faceless sources, the infamous "they" of "they say" fame:

Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
I have seen it said, that the RS in a raw potato is approx 75% of available starch, so the typical raw potato has about 30g of RS.
Where have you seen it? Who said it? When did they say it? Keep in mind that under a strict interpretation of this sentence, you reading your own post where you claim that 75% of available starch is resistant starch qualifies as "having seen it said", albeit in a completely unsatisfying fraudulent way.

I can just as easily claim, unsubstantiated of course, that I have seen it said that potatoes are long term metabolic poison.

Also of interesting note, there are many 'food' manufacturing companies out there trying to GMO wheat and other grains to increase RS as well as make RS from corn and other grain products. From the chart above, raw potato blows away anything they have made so far...

You keep missing the point. I'm not debating whether RS will cause increased colonic fermentation and thereby increased SCFA production to sustain colonocytes. Read that again, I'm not discussing that, nor the benefits of a healthy colonic biome, nor whether medium to short chain fatty acids metabolize differently from long chains.

I am very interested in debating whether one needs to go out of one's way to "supplement" with RS from potatoes, for instance. I do not believe this to be the case as there are other indigestible carbohydrates which serve the exact same function from the colonic bacteria point of view ... things like fructans, inulin, and various other things that you get by eating such things as fibrous vegetables, onions, asparagus, etc. etc.